Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

1289630

registered interest
date	24/02/2021
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	Aquariums: Coronavirus
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether aquariums are included among the indoor attractions that will be able to open in Step 3 of the roadmap for reopening announced on 22 February 2021.
tabling member constituency	Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle
tabling member printed	Emma Hardy
uin	158183
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/03/2021 answer text <p>The Government announced on 22 February 2021 that outdoor attractions including the outdoor parts of zoos and aquariums will be able to reopen from, at the earliest, 12 April 2021. The remaining indoor parts of zoos and aquariums will be able to reopen from, at the earliest, 17 May 2021.</p> answering member constituency Banbury answering member printed Victoria Prentis question first answered 01/03/2021 17:53:15 answering member 4401 label Biography information for Victoria Prentis
tabling member	4645 label Biography information for Emma Hardy

1289721

registered interest
date	24/02/2021
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	Iron and Steel
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps his Department is taking to promote the use of UK-made steel in projects funded by his Department.
tabling member constituency	Sefton Central
tabling member printed	Bill Esterson
uin	158026
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/03/2021 answer text <p>The Departmental main user of steel products is the Environment Agency. Regular reports are submitted to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy who publish the six-year FCRM Capital programme of construction projects each year which may include steel content.</p><p> </p><p>There is an expectation that supplier partners will use the Contracts Finder website to advertise any sub-contracting opportunities outside their established supply chain.</p><p> </p><p>All Government departments and arms-length bodies are required to consider socio-economic and environmental factors when procuring steel, not just cost alone.</p><p> </p><p>Sustainability, quality and price criteria are used when selecting suitable suppliers. Our new Social Value Model (published in September last year) requires central Government departments to expressly evaluate environmental, social and economic benefits as part of the procurement process (for qualifying procurements).</p><p> </p><p>In addition, the Government is currently consulting on an ambitious package of major procurement reform. The Government’s aim is to create a simpler and more flexible regime that works much better for British businesses, including steel business, while still complying with our international obligations. The proposals made will help ensure that public procurement at all levels actively helps achieve national strategic priorities, generating economic growth, helping our communities recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and tackling climate change. The consultation closes on 10 March.</p> answering member constituency Banbury answering member printed Victoria Prentis question first answered 01/03/2021 16:46:35 answering member 4401 label Biography information for Victoria Prentis
tabling member	4061 label Biography information for Bill Esterson

1289723

registered interest
date	24/02/2021
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	Iron and Steel: Government Assistance
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment his Department has made of the environmental benefits of using UK-made steel in projects funded by his Department.
tabling member constituency	Sefton Central
tabling member printed	Bill Esterson
uin	158027
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/03/2021 answer text <p>Within the Environment Agency’s Collaborative Delivery Framework, the following is specified:</p><p> </p><ul><li>All suppliers must have Environmental Management Systems and hold ISO 14001.</li><li>Steel piles will be specified and sourced in line with Minimum Technical Requirements.</li><li>Steel used shall have a high recycled content. As a minimum this should be 70%, but higher recycled content rates are expected.</li><li>Contractors must demonstrate that life cycle sustainability impacts have been considered and minimised in the purchase of steel. Credible evidence must be obtained which demonstrates sustainability and traceability through the supply chain.</li></ul><p>All Government departments and arms-length bodies are required to consider socio-economic and environmental factors when procuring steel, not just cost alone.</p><p> </p><p>Our new Social Value Model (published in September last year) requires central government departments to expressly evaluate environmental, social and economic benefits as part of the procurement process (for qualifying procurements).</p><p> </p><p>In addition, the Government is currently consulting on an ambitious package of major procurement reform. The Government’s aim is to create a simpler and more flexible regime that works much better for British businesses, including steel business, while still complying with our international obligations.  The proposals made will help ensure that public procurement at all levels actively helps achieve national strategic priorities, generating economic growth, helping our communities recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and tackling climate change. The consultation closes on 10 March.</p> answering member constituency Banbury answering member printed Victoria Prentis question first answered 01/03/2021 16:37:25 answering member 4401 label Biography information for Victoria Prentis
tabling member	4061 label Biography information for Bill Esterson

1288966

registered interest
date	23/02/2021
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	National Parks
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment he has made of the potential effect of the proposed National Landscapes Service on the management of National Parks.
tabling member constituency	Brent North
tabling member printed	Barry Gardiner
uin	156997
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/03/2021 answer text <p>The independent Landscapes Review, led by Julian Glover, set out a compelling vision for more beautiful, more biodiverse and more accessible National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs).</p><p> </p><p>We welcome this ambition, as the Government is committed to ensuring our protected landscapes flourish as havens for nature and are places that everyone can visit and enjoy.</p><p> </p><p>The Landscapes Review included recommendations for long-term structural changes, such as creating a new National Landscape Service and changing National Park and AONB statutory purposes, that would require legislation were they to be taken forward.</p><p> </p><p>We are working closely with National Park Authorities, AONB organisations and wider stakeholders to consider the potential effects of the Landscape Review’s recommendations and to develop a well-informed response to the review, which we will publish in due course.</p> answering member constituency Taunton Deane answering member printed Rebecca Pow question first answered 01/03/2021 17:02:31 answering member 4522 label Biography information for Rebecca Pow
tabling member	146 label Biography information for Barry Gardiner

1289033

registered interest
date	23/02/2021
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	Watersure
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of including (a) people in receipt of attendance allowance and (b) additional benefit recipients in the qualification criteria for the WaterSure Scheme, as outlined in the Water Industry (Charges) (Vulnerable Groups) Regulations 1999.
tabling member constituency	Coventry South
tabling member printed	Zarah Sultana
uin	157314
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/03/2021 answer text <p>To be eligible for WaterSure, customers must be in receipt of means tested benefits, which provides an appropriate measure for assessing income, and have either three or more children under 19 or a medical condition requiring the extra use of water.</p><p> </p><p>Attendance Allowance is not included as an eligible benefit as it is a non means-tested benefit. Without an income-related criterion, those who are able to afford their water bill may receive financial support funded by other lower income households.</p><p> </p><p>Since the introduction of WaterSure, the legislation has been updated to add and remove benefits, making sure that WaterSure continues to support those most in need of assistance. The Government does not intend to change the eligibility criteria for WaterSure at this time.</p><p> </p><p>Water companies also offer social tariffs, payment breaks, payment matching, debt advice and referral arrangements, and some have independent charitable trusts that make awards to help customers in times of need. The eligibility criteria for social tariffs is not set by the Government, allowing water companies to address the local and regional needs of their customers.</p><p> </p><p>We have asked the independent Consumer Council for Water to undertake a review of existing financial support schemes to ensure consumers who struggle with their water bills can get the support they need. The review will be published this spring.</p> answering member constituency Taunton Deane answering member printed Rebecca Pow question first answered 01/03/2021 16:49:29 answering member 4522 label Biography information for Rebecca Pow
tabling member	4786 label Biography information for Zarah Sultana

1289053

registered interest
date	23/02/2021
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	Beverage Containers: Deposit Return Schemes
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if his Department will make an assessment of the potential effect on consumer vehicular emissions of his proposals on a deposit return scheme in comparison to existing kerbside collections.
tabling member constituency	Southampton, Test
tabling member printed	Dr Alan Whitehead
uin	156995
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/03/2021 answer text <p>The Government’s proposals to introduce a deposit return scheme for drinks containers recognise the need to ensure convenience and wide availability of return points for consumers, ensuring they can easily fit the scheme into their everyday lives. With this in mind, our current analysis has been designed with sufficient return points in place to reflect the policy proposal that deposits can be redeemed in settings that fit different consumer daily routines, thus avoiding the need for consumers to make additional journeys purely for the sake of returning their drinks containers. On this basis, there is no intention to carry out further assessment of consumer vehicular emissions at this time.</p> answering member constituency Taunton Deane answering member printed Rebecca Pow question first answered 01/03/2021 16:45:08 answering member 4522 label Biography information for Rebecca Pow
tabling member	62 label Biography information for Dr Alan Whitehead

1289054

registered interest
date	23/02/2021
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	Beverage Containers: Deposit Return Schemes
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if his Department will make an assessment of the effect on people on lower incomes of his proposed deposit return scheme compared to using existing kerbside collections.
tabling member constituency	Southampton, Test
tabling member printed	Dr Alan Whitehead
uin	156996
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/03/2021 answer text <p>The Government is committed to introducing a deposit return scheme which is based on the principles of accessibility and convenience for all members of society. While all deposits placed on in-scope drinks containers will be redeemable, we do recognise the potential for an increased burden this could place on some consumers, particularly in lower income groups, to collect and return their containers to redeem their deposits. To ensure this activity and behaviour change is accurately accounted for in our analysis, the Government intends to carry out further research this year on the effect a deposit return scheme might have on specific groups in society, including those on lower incomes.</p> answering member constituency Taunton Deane answering member printed Rebecca Pow question first answered 01/03/2021 16:38:48 answering member 4522 label Biography information for Rebecca Pow
tabling member	62 label Biography information for Dr Alan Whitehead

1286883

registered interest
date	19/02/2021
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	Incinerators: Air Pollution
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 11 December 2020 to Question 124345 on Incinerators: Air Pollution, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of requiring environmental permits for incinerators in England to set specific limits for (a) PM10 and (b) PM2.5 emissions rather than for total particulate matter.
tabling member constituency	Loughborough
tabling member printed	Jane Hunt
uin	154641
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/03/2021 answer text <p>In England, all large incinerators, also known as energy from waste (EfW) plants, are regulated by the Environment Agency (EA) and must comply with strict emission limits set by the Industrial Emissions Directive (as amended under the EU Withdrawal Act 2018). Permits are not issued if the proposed plant will have unacceptable impacts on human health or the environment.</p><p>Emission limits within permits are set for total particulate matter (TPM), which includes both PM10 and PM2.5. New permit applications are assessed to ensure that impacts from both types of particulate matter will be acceptable by assuming worst-case scenarios, whereby TPM is made up entirely of either PM10 or PM2.5. This allows the EA to determine the potential impact from each of these pollutants were they to make up the entirety of the TPM emitted. This is a precautionary approach as in practice TPM will be a mixture of sizes, and so the true impact will be less. The EA has not carried out a formal assessment with regards to setting limits for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 individually because the TPM approach delivers effective control of both PM10 and PM2.5 emissions.</p><p>The EA takes into account the existing concentration of particulate matter in the areas surrounding EfW plants when setting TPM emission limits. The EA assesses new EfW plant permit applications using air quality modelling to predict the worst-case scenario for the concentration of particulates arising from the plant for both PM10 and PM2.5. This concentration is then added to the existing (background) concentration to determine the total predicted environmental concentration, which is then compared against the relevant air quality standard. If impacts from the EfW plant could cause an air quality standard to be exceeded, then a lower limit for total particulate matter could be specified in the permit, or the permit may be refused.</p><p>Finally, on the potential merits of live emissions data monitoring for EfW plants; all EfW plants in England are already required to continuously monitor emissions of oxides of nitrogen, total particulate matter, carbon monoxide, total organic carbon, sulphur dioxide and hydrogen chloride. Some are also required to continuously monitor ammonia.</p><p>Operators are required to report the results from monitoring to the EA every 3 months, and to submit annual reports of their emissions to the EA’s Pollution Inventory. The EA also carries out regular inspections and audits to ensure plants comply with their permits.</p> answering member constituency Taunton Deane answering member printed Rebecca Pow grouped question UIN 154644 154646 question first answered 01/03/2021 16:34:47 answering member 4522 label Biography information for Rebecca Pow
tabling member	4839 label Biography information for Jane Hunt

1286884

registered interest
date	19/02/2021
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	Incinerators: Air Pollution
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 11 December 2020 to Question 124345 on Incinerators: Air Pollution, what assessment he has made of the feasibility of requiring the Environment Agency to take into account existing levels of particulate matter in the surrounding area when setting total particulate matter limits in environmental permits for incinerators in England.
tabling member constituency	Loughborough
tabling member printed	Jane Hunt
uin	154644
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/03/2021 answer text <p>In England, all large incinerators, also known as energy from waste (EfW) plants, are regulated by the Environment Agency (EA) and must comply with strict emission limits set by the Industrial Emissions Directive (as amended under the EU Withdrawal Act 2018). Permits are not issued if the proposed plant will have unacceptable impacts on human health or the environment.</p><p>Emission limits within permits are set for total particulate matter (TPM), which includes both PM10 and PM2.5. New permit applications are assessed to ensure that impacts from both types of particulate matter will be acceptable by assuming worst-case scenarios, whereby TPM is made up entirely of either PM10 or PM2.5. This allows the EA to determine the potential impact from each of these pollutants were they to make up the entirety of the TPM emitted. This is a precautionary approach as in practice TPM will be a mixture of sizes, and so the true impact will be less. The EA has not carried out a formal assessment with regards to setting limits for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 individually because the TPM approach delivers effective control of both PM10 and PM2.5 emissions.</p><p>The EA takes into account the existing concentration of particulate matter in the areas surrounding EfW plants when setting TPM emission limits. The EA assesses new EfW plant permit applications using air quality modelling to predict the worst-case scenario for the concentration of particulates arising from the plant for both PM10 and PM2.5. This concentration is then added to the existing (background) concentration to determine the total predicted environmental concentration, which is then compared against the relevant air quality standard. If impacts from the EfW plant could cause an air quality standard to be exceeded, then a lower limit for total particulate matter could be specified in the permit, or the permit may be refused.</p><p>Finally, on the potential merits of live emissions data monitoring for EfW plants; all EfW plants in England are already required to continuously monitor emissions of oxides of nitrogen, total particulate matter, carbon monoxide, total organic carbon, sulphur dioxide and hydrogen chloride. Some are also required to continuously monitor ammonia.</p><p>Operators are required to report the results from monitoring to the EA every 3 months, and to submit annual reports of their emissions to the EA’s Pollution Inventory. The EA also carries out regular inspections and audits to ensure plants comply with their permits.</p> answering member constituency Taunton Deane answering member printed Rebecca Pow grouped question UIN 154641 154646 question first answered 01/03/2021 16:34:47 answering member 4522 label Biography information for Rebecca Pow
tabling member	4839 label Biography information for Jane Hunt

1286885

registered interest
date	19/02/2021
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	Incinerators: Air Pollution
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of live emissions data monitoring being made a requirement in all environmental permits for incinerators in England.
tabling member constituency	Loughborough
tabling member printed	Jane Hunt
uin	154646
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/03/2021 answer text <p>In England, all large incinerators, also known as energy from waste (EfW) plants, are regulated by the Environment Agency (EA) and must comply with strict emission limits set by the Industrial Emissions Directive (as amended under the EU Withdrawal Act 2018). Permits are not issued if the proposed plant will have unacceptable impacts on human health or the environment.</p><p>Emission limits within permits are set for total particulate matter (TPM), which includes both PM10 and PM2.5. New permit applications are assessed to ensure that impacts from both types of particulate matter will be acceptable by assuming worst-case scenarios, whereby TPM is made up entirely of either PM10 or PM2.5. This allows the EA to determine the potential impact from each of these pollutants were they to make up the entirety of the TPM emitted. This is a precautionary approach as in practice TPM will be a mixture of sizes, and so the true impact will be less. The EA has not carried out a formal assessment with regards to setting limits for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 individually because the TPM approach delivers effective control of both PM10 and PM2.5 emissions.</p><p>The EA takes into account the existing concentration of particulate matter in the areas surrounding EfW plants when setting TPM emission limits. The EA assesses new EfW plant permit applications using air quality modelling to predict the worst-case scenario for the concentration of particulates arising from the plant for both PM10 and PM2.5. This concentration is then added to the existing (background) concentration to determine the total predicted environmental concentration, which is then compared against the relevant air quality standard. If impacts from the EfW plant could cause an air quality standard to be exceeded, then a lower limit for total particulate matter could be specified in the permit, or the permit may be refused.</p><p>Finally, on the potential merits of live emissions data monitoring for EfW plants; all EfW plants in England are already required to continuously monitor emissions of oxides of nitrogen, total particulate matter, carbon monoxide, total organic carbon, sulphur dioxide and hydrogen chloride. Some are also required to continuously monitor ammonia.</p><p>Operators are required to report the results from monitoring to the EA every 3 months, and to submit annual reports of their emissions to the EA’s Pollution Inventory. The EA also carries out regular inspections and audits to ensure plants comply with their permits.</p> answering member constituency Taunton Deane answering member printed Rebecca Pow grouped question UIN 154641 154644 question first answered 01/03/2021 16:34:48 answering member 4522 label Biography information for Rebecca Pow
tabling member	4839 label Biography information for Jane Hunt